Reynolds v. Swilly

District of Columbia

Reynolds v. Swilly

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJanuary 20, 2016

DocketCivil Action No. 2015-2094

StatusPublished

This text of Reynolds v. Swilly (Reynolds v. Swilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reynolds v. Swilly, (D.D.C. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 2 0 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2015

Clerk, US. District & Bankruptcy

NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS, ) Courts torthe District of Columbia ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action NO. 15—2094 (UNA) ) JULIA SWILLY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Solicitor and Assistant Solicitors for Williamsburg County, South Carolina. Generally, plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated rights protected under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution while prosecuting

the criminal case against him. He demands compensatory damages among other relief.

Prosecutors, such as the defendants in this action, are absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Imbler v. Patchman, 424 US. 409, 427 (1976); see Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 499-502 (DC. Cir. 1983). Furthermore, because these constitutional claims were brought or could have been brought in plaintiff’s prior lawsuit, see Reynolds v. Brown, No. 4:15-cv—865, 2015 WL 4077168 (D.S.C. Mar. 5, 2015) (Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to dismiss constitutional claims “against Williamsburg County Assistant Solicitors Tyler B. Brown . . . and Kimberly V. Barr . . . , and Sumter County Solicitor Ernest A. Finney III”), adopted,

2015 WL 4078552 (D.S.C. June 30, 2015), the claims are now barred. An Order consistent with

this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: / W WWW?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 2 0 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2015

Clerk, US. District & Bankruptcy

NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS, ) Courts torthe District of Columbia ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action NO. 15—2094 (UNA) ) JULIA SWILLY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Solicitor and Assistant Solicitors for Williamsburg County, South Carolina. Generally, plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated rights protected under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution while prosecuting

the criminal case against him. He demands compensatory damages among other relief.

Prosecutors, such as the defendants in this action, are absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Imbler v. Patchman, 424 US. 409, 427 (1976); see Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 499-502 (DC. Cir. 1983). Furthermore, because these constitutional claims were brought or could have been brought in plaintiff’s prior lawsuit, see Reynolds v. Brown, No. 4:15-cv—865, 2015 WL 4077168 (D.S.C. Mar. 5, 2015) (Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to dismiss constitutional claims “against Williamsburg County Assistant Solicitors Tyler B. Brown . . . and Kimberly V. Barr . . . , and Sumter County Solicitor Ernest A. Finney III”), adopted,

2015 WL 4078552 (D.S.C. June 30, 2015), the claims are now barred. An Order consistent with

this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: / W WWW?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reynolds v. Swilly, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-swilly-dcd-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack